ArticleScientific reports2026
A machine learning approach for opioid overdose risk prediction among Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with opioid prescriptions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study is to develop and validate a machine learning approach for predicting opioid overdose risk and identifying associated risk factors among Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries during the period of 2016–2023. Using the administrative claims data, we trained three machine learning models, penalized logistic regression, random forest and gradient boosting machines, on the 2016–2018 data with 168,625 records, and test and validate the models on the 2019–2023 data with 229,212 records. A modern sampling approach, SMOTE, was incorporated into the study to deal with the imbalance in the overdose outcome. The machine learning models demonstrated strong performance assessed by C-statistics, sensitivity and specificity, precision and recall rates, etc. Several risk factors were identified including changes in prescription patterns, beneficiary’s age, and prescription denials. Differences in ROC-AUC and PR-AUC between models with and without SMOTE were modest; interpretation therefore emphasizes improvements in recall rather than overall discrimination. SMOTE-based performance metrics were averaged across 50 resampling iterations to reduce instability from single-run oversampling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.